Author Topic: Different foods  (Read 16769 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tarious

  • Adventure Ace
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • FINISH HIM!
    • View Profile
Re: Different foods
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2005, 07:24:17 pm »
no to collect resources and to have as pets.

Offline lemurbouy

  • Defender Devotee
  • ***
  • Posts: 430
  • oh my...
    • View Profile
    • Leeman's Livejournal!
Re: Different foods
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2005, 10:59:20 pm »
I really enjoy the idea of pets and the idea that what you do and how you interact with the environment affects the culture and perosnality of your race.  Setting sliders and choosing options like "passive" or "aggressive" would be allright but seeing your people develop almost independently based on whether they farm, herd or hunt would be much more interesting in my opinion.  We shall see.  -leeman

Offline Stromko

  • Phoenix Fighter
  • **
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: Different foods
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2005, 05:59:03 am »
As far as foods and ecosystems go, and how that might limit the size of your creature, that kinda touches upon a theory that I've been considering as likely for a few days now.

That is, all creatures will =not= be made equal, some will be faster, stronger, smarter, bigger, than others. That way you can have super predators in the 'Diablo' era which you have to run away from. But, they will have to eat more food than a weaker, smaller, dumber creature in order to create offspring(whether this be to evolve in the Diablo or earlier era, or to create more people in the tribe and Civ eras).

So for instance you can have some huge, ultra-intelligent Elder Thing-kinda creature with 12 eyes, 12 teeth, innumerable super-strong tentacles and a forty-pound brain, but, they will be outnumbered by other, lesser species. The weak ape-things that would otherwise be their food source, might outpopulate and outexpand, and ultimately defeat the much fewer Elder things.

This just seems likely to me, it gives people the freedom to not have a 'cap' on their creature's power, while making it so uber creatures don't totally dominate. OTOH, it shouldn't be so potent that for spending too long in the evolution era you end up with a species that is nonviable later. This shouldn't be a punishment for strong species and a 'cheat' for weak species, it should truly be a choice with equal drawbacks and advantages.

Personally I'd like to make some hyper-intelligent hivemind creatures, weak alone but strong in numbers, cranking out dozens of dispensable war vehicles from their numerous factories... I hope something close to that can be approximated in the game. :)

Offline krjal

  • Pac-Man Maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
Re: Different foods
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2005, 07:26:33 pm »
Interesting.

OTOH?

IYDM...
+++"Sometimes, when I look into the abyss, the abyss looks back" - [tmo]+++

Offline Stromko

  • Phoenix Fighter
  • **
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: Different foods
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2005, 10:54:12 pm »
You can spend as long as you want in the different stages, from what we've heard so far anyway, so there is some question as to how the species will balance to one another. My theory was that species could indeed become much stronger individually than others, with enough evolution or just the right kind, but that it would make them more expensive in 'bio energy' to feed or birth, thus making survival more demanding and later meaning a lower population per their resources.

However, an alternative hypothesis that I think we can justifiably make from the information so far available, is that abilities are based on gross physical form, that to be strong your creature must be huge, to be fast it must have legs very large to the scale of its body, and that to be smart it has to find a way to balance a heavy lump of dead weight somewhere in its form. In this model, all creatures would be fundamentally equal.. but balance can hardly be assured when you choose not only size and weight, but also number of limbs, number of eyes, etc.

The third theory that I've come across so far, is that there will be no attempt at all to 'balance' the creature evolution, it will simply be survival of the fittest. Though I wouldn't totally doubt the possibility, it seems inappropriate due to the bulk of the things you interact with being player-made; as players are generally very good at min/maxing, I would expect it'd be almost impossible to play for a lot of players.

To me it still seems the theory that the tougher you are the more you have to eat, seems most plausible; and this could also determine your food value. Such a system would also explain how vehicles are balanced, and how buildings are balanced if indeed changes to them are anything but cosmetic. At this point it really doesn't seem we have enough info to know anything for sure, but I may be missing something.

Edit: btw what is IYDM? Wikipedia knows nothing of this acronym.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2005, 10:56:08 pm by Stromko »

Offline krjal

  • Pac-Man Maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
    • View Profile
Re: Different foods
« Reply #35 on: April 04, 2005, 06:16:47 am »
The food valuing (later simply money I guess) seems most likely at this point. It's really a middle road between the two other models you presented ie. the anything goes model and the rigid 'physical compensation' model.

ps. Sorry, just a lame comment on the all caps...which is technically correct as it was an acronym, but iydm is If You Don't Mind which I made up on the spot and therefore it is unsuprising that the great Wiki knows nothing of its meaning...uh, yeeah... ;D
+++"Sometimes, when I look into the abyss, the abyss looks back" - [tmo]+++